City of Punta Gorda Adaptation Plan Southwest Florida Regional ...

Monitoring and

Monitoring and evaluation of results The following discussion of monitoring and the monitoring plan for this adaptation plan follow the standards and suggestion outline in Perez and Yohe (2004) for Monitoring Continuing the Adaptation Process. The purpose of monitoring is to keep track of progress in the implementation of an adaptation strategy and its various components in relation to the targets. This enables management to improve operational plans and to take timely corrective action in the case of shortfalls and constraints. As part of the management information system, monitoring is an integral part of the function of management, and should be conducted by those responsible for the project/program implementation. The resulting data, in whatever form, must be archived so that they can be readily accessed for internal or external evaluation. Monitoring should be carried out during implementation, as well as during the lifetime of the project. Both the selection of indicators for monitoring and the frequency of monitoring can evolve over time as the adaptation process matures; this evolution may continue as the adaptation process is incorporated into a country‘s overall policy mix. The most important point is that monitoring continues. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) must go hand-in-hand. In the context of adaptation, evaluation is a process for systematically and objectively determining the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and impact of an adaptation strategy in light of its objectives. Whereas monitoring is carried out only during implementation, evaluation is carried out during implementation (ongoing evaluation), at the completion of a project (final evaluation) or some years after completion (post evaluation). Much of the evaluation activity can be based on self-assessment of the responsible operational staff, but external evaluation is also a common practice. Formal M&E processes should be practical. In principle, a network of concerned institutions and stakeholders (data suppliers and users) could be established. Increasingly, the trend in this field is towards participatory M&E, which includes the most vulnerable group(s) in decision-making. The concept of a central M&E unit to co-ordinate all of the functions could be established within, or under the jurisdiction of, a strategic government agency (e.g., Public Works, Planning or Environment).While institutional barriers can impede M&E, these barriers can be assessed during project design and addressed during its implementation. Comprehensive adaptation strategies consist of policies, measures and projects. Appropriate M&E processes may be quite different for each strategic level. Furthermore, gaps in the structure and design of the strategy can impede progress toward long-term goals of sustainability. Policies that exist without tangible measures are paper tigers; conversely, projects that exist outside of a clear policy context can be redundant or contradictory. Monitoring for gaps of this sort can pay enormous dividends. Monitoring alone is useless if the raw data and basic information it generates are not analyzed in the evaluation process. M&E processes depend on carefully developed sets of indicators by which the performance of adaptation activities can be assessed. These indicators provide the basis for before-and-after analyses and describe the effects (positive and negative) of project interventions – anticipated and unanticipated, intended and unintended. Indicators are quantitative or qualitative measures that can be used to describe existing situations and measure changes or trends over time. Performance indicators developed by the CHNEP will be criteria for success. In the context of the logical framework approach, at least one indicator should be defined as a performance standard for each adaptation to be reached in order to achieve an objective (GEF 2002). Indicators should include both outputs and outcomes (impacts), with AdaptationPlan Page 316

explicit statements of how the indicator demonstrates that the project goal has been met, and what the functional relationship is between a change in the indicator and the outcome of a project. Exploring the success or failure of the adaptation process depends on more than just the success or failure of implemented projects. More critically, it depends upon the concept of learning by doing. This approach enables users to undertake midcourse corrections in implemented adaptations, so that they meet their objectives more efficiently; and improve their understanding of the determinants of adaptive capacity so that capacity development activities can be more successful from the start. To accomplish these tasks, two earlier insights can be revisited. First, establish the necessary criteria for evaluation. Second, the M&E process will eventually have historical evidence of what actually happened over a period of time; this can be compared to the conjectural characterization of future conditions. To learn from mistakes and successes, it is important to combine these insights to: compare actual experience with the initial characterization, and with the criteria; and construct a revised adaptation baseline that describes how the system would have performed in the absence of the implemented adaptation. This revised adaptation baseline will differ from the adaptation baseline. It will be more accurate, based on actual experience and on the evolution of the structural, economic, and political context. This can be critical, since it will suggest whether an adaptation to climate is ―swimming uphill‖ against some non-climatic impediment or ―being carried along‖ by other reforms. Thus, an evaluation could improve the team‘s forecasting capability. A review of the criteria used for making the original implementation decision will yield insights about needed changes, and will improve the next adaptation decision. Participatory processes in support of adaptation can add value and enhance feasibility. Engaging as many stakeholders as possible can democratize the overall process of adapting to climate change, including variability. It follows that participatory M&E can be productive, but care must be taken to note the potential pitfalls. Stakeholder engagement can uncover obstacles, including a healthy degree of initial skepticism on the part of the public about the information provided by the government. In the context of adaptation, mainstreaming refers to the integration of adaptation objectives, strategies, policies, measures or operations such that they become part of the City‘s development policies, processes and budgets at all levels and stages. The idea is to make the adaptation process a critical component of existing development plans. Likely entry points for mainstreaming climate adaptation include: environmental management plans (particularly when they incorporate environmental impact assessments), conservation strategies, disaster preparedness and/or management plans and sustainable development plans for specific sectors (e.g., agriculture, forestry, transportation, fisheries, etc.)Moreover, working through the determinants of adaptive capacity makes it clear that promoting capacity can complement or even advance the broader objectives of improved economics and sustainable development. The issue is to recognize an opportunity for mainstreaming and to use it. AdaptationPlan Page 317